Was Mackenzie a copycat?

[lynn cates]

book

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Ah, couched in EXTREMELY careful language, so Phil`s not so confident."

A healthy attitude for the ripper student.

'It`s an excellent book only to be let down in one or two places by his personal views."

A pervasive sin.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

John, I wasn't thinking of any individual - l

I know, Phil. No worries mate :-)

[Phil H]

the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

Accepted as a possibility, but for the killer of Eddowes and Kelly his choice of location seems to revert to the earlier killings.

The "Jack" of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes seems to me to have been a man of cool nerve (or insane enough not to care). For Chapman and Eddowes he chose or was guided to more secluded spots than in the case of Nichols.

One can look at Nichols and ask, as many of us have, was he interrupted or was she a first "experimental" kill, before he had worked out what he wanted to do - as with Chapman and Eddowes, or his curiousity about plundering a woman's body had been roused.

A weakened "Jack" with Mckenzie (rather than an interruption) might also explain both the gap (however long) and why we have no more in a new series.

I just ask questions and am looking for possible new patterns here - I neither question the views of others, nor seek to grind my own axe.

Phil

[Phil H]

John, I wasn't thinking of any individual - but there was a reference to the gap since MJK, which I think does make an assumption about the canon.

The title of the thread also rather assumes that Mckenzie was not, by definition, an accepted Ripper victim.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

I note in recent posts a lot of assumption that the canonical victims were the "Ripper's" work - yet in discussing the inclusion of Mckenzie, we are by implication questioning the conventional wisdom. So maybe we should go back to first principles - which victims do WE think "Jack" killed?

Assuming that my posts were amongst the posts you refer to in assuming the canonical victims were the Ripper`s work, I can assure you I have my own cannon that I base all my opinions on.

But we wouldn`t be questioning conventional wisdom anyway, as many of the hands-on Police and Detectives of the day thought McKenzie was a Ripper victim.

The cannon would have included McKenzie had it been compiled 9 months later.

[GregBaron]

Throttle technique...

the most recent killings then attributed to the Ripper were Eddowes - (terribly mutilated) and Kelly (almost taken apart). Why copy the older style of killing not the more recent?

and the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

If you are in a public place, perhaps time is of the essence?

I agree with Lynn and Abby Phil, perhaps he was spooked by approaching footsteps..

I think that the question of was Mackenzie killed by jack is very important. Because if she was then that rules out Druitt, tumblety, Bury-major suspects.

Agreed Abby, this idea was the purpose of the thread.

Would not side/back be the natural way to do the deed?

This is true Lynn but would a copycat know how to throttle/strangle/choke into unconsciousness? I’m not sure if this was done to Mackenzie but I believe it was done to some of the others…


Greg

[Phil H]

I note in recent posts a lot of assumption that the canonical victims were the "Ripper's" work - yet in discussing the inclusion of Mckenzie, we are by implication questioning the conventional wisdom. So maybe we should go back to first principles - which victims do WE think "Jack" killed?

The MO appears to be that of jack at least at the beginning stage but the length of time since the Kelly murder when all the previous victims were killed within weeks of each other seems to argues against.

But as I suggested in an earlier post, what if the actual gap is even longer - back to Chapman? the wounds on Mckenise seem to be similar to Nichols and Chapman - usually recognised as by the same hand. So I strongly question that assumption, which is self-referencing.

In discussing Mckenzie reliance on the safe and conventional won't do, I fear - it simply blocks logical thinking.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

But surely not Sir Robert?

He said a lot in retropsect.
Did he over ride Monro`s orders to put more coppers on the street?

Authors? How about Professor Sugden? His final word--admittedly couched in EXTREMELY careful language--seems to be indicated on p. 359 of his "Complete History." (Note his remarks on "copycats.")

Ah, couched in EXTREMELY careful language, so Phil`s not so confident. It`s an excellent book only to be let down in one or two places by his personal views.

[lynn cates]

Sugden

Hello Jon. Thanks.

But surely not Sir Robert?

Authors? How about Professor Sugden? His final word--admittedly couched in EXTREMELY careful language--seems to be indicated on p. 359 of his "Complete History." (Note his remarks on "copycats.")

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Including the fertile imaginations at the Met and many ripper authors over the past few years.

The Met?
Monro thought it was the Ripper and acted as such.

Ripper authors. Any in particular?
But yes, many Ripper books should be in the fiction section of my library.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Abby

If it was jack then the length of time between murders could be explained because he felt he needed to lay low after the Kelly murder if he felt it was getting to hot (blotchy, hutch, Barnett anyone?) and the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

The length in time could be simply explained by our killer preferring the warm weather to wander around the streets at all hours.

In 1888 the series started in the summer and finished with an indoor murder in November. The murderer seemingly commencing again in July `89 (nearly exactly a year on) with the murder of McKenzie.

I believe Monro feared another series would commence that July as it had done in August 88 and immediatley put more police on the streets.

[lynn cates]

nick

Hello Phil. Here are some questions.

1. IF one dies by cut throat, is one, the other, or both carotids likely to receive at least a nick?

2. Would not side/back be the natural way to do the deed?

"Why copy the older style of killing not the more recent?"

If you are in a public place, perhaps time is of the essence?

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

I think that the question of was Mackenzie killed by jack is very important. Because if she was then that rules out Druitt, tumblety, Bury-major suspects.
The MO appears to be that of jack at least at the beginning stage but the length of time since the Kelly murder when all the previous victims were killed within weeks of each other seems to argues against.

If it was not jack I doubt it was someone trying to pin it on him, the ripper scare had died down by then. More than likely it just happened to appear jack like.

If it was jack then the length of time between murders could be explained because he felt he needed to lay low after the Kelly murder if he felt it was getting to hot (blotchy, hutch, Barnett anyone?) and the incompleteness could because he was interrupted again.

I'm 60-40 that it was not the rippers work.

[Phil H]

To me the problems of a copy cat includes these points:

a) as John Guy has expressed it well "McKenzie`s death was caused by the "Ripperish" opened left carotid whilst on her back. So, whomever killed her, attacked her in a Ripper like manner from the onset, ie. cut throat , on her back, and making it look like the Ripper must have been the aim from the onset.

Could someone in 1888, other than the Ripper himself, have known that this was a "Ripperish" way of killing? Would it have been possible to analyse newspaper reports and inquest testimony to come up with all those features - throat cut; while on back, the quite subtle mutilations? I wonder.

b) the most recent killings then attributed to the Ripper were Eddowes - (terribly mutilated) and Kelly (almost taken apart). Why copy the older style of killing not the more recent?

c) as I have said before, it strikes me that a copy cat killer, working from press reports (not the pics and sketches we have seen) would have over-stated the mutilations, not understated them - especially given the last two murders (Eddowes and Kelly).

So, I see the copy cat as frankly improbable.

But if the killer of Mckenzie was "Jack" then why go back to the earlier style? Is it possible that this is telling us that "Jack" killed Nichols, Chapman and maybe Mckenzie, but NOT Eddowes or Kelly which were not in his "style"? Could it be that an enfeebled/ill "Jack" came out of retirement to demonstrate that single fact - "I did not do Eddowes or Kelly"?

You'll note I have no answers only questions.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

I appreciate you were just offering the below as an option, and it is not your belief. Just in case you think I`m attacking you ;-)


Even with this kind of scenario McKenzie`s death was caused by the "Ripperish" opened left carotid whilst on her back. So, whomever killed her, attacked her in a Ripper like manner from the onset, ie. cut throat , on her back, and making it look like the Ripper must have been the aim from the onset.

What is more likely? The same killer from a few months previous or another person who could commit murder, and then have the daring to violate the body in such a manner in the open street.

I understand there are the feeble minded, like that tit from Birtley, who are influenced by crimes but the sort of copycat that would have been involved in the McKennzie murder only exists in over fertile imaginations and the fiction department of my local library.

I´ll keep it short, Jon: agreed!

The best,
Fisherman